Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

My usage of the terms hard and soft are meant to be metaphorical. I see "hard" Aikido as being primarily concerned with the imposition of nage's will upon uke and controlling all aspects of the encounter. I see "soft" Aikido as eschewing the idea of control altogether and letting the technique arise naturally from the nature of the encounter.

Of course reality isn't so black and white and there are innumerable shades of gray in-between both extremes. The original, and poorly rendered I might add, question of this thread concerned whether or not one must first learn hard Aikido before being able to master the softer side of the art.

Best,

Ron

If someone tries to hit you over the head, you prevent them, regardless of the means, have you not just imposed your will on them? They wanted to hit you, you didn't want them to, you got your way.

Quite a simplistic example but I hope my point clear; I think it is not as simple as "imposing will" since you "allowing" a technique to occur does involve some will on your part otherwise we wouldn't need to learn aikido just walk round with a "what will be will be" attitude wouldn't we?

I'm not suggesting that the technique being dictated by the circumstance is wrong, just that this could be seen as imposing your will, albeit more "subtlely" perhaps.

"If someone tries to hit you over the head, you prevent them, regardless of the means, have you not just imposed your will on them? They wanted to hit you, you didn't want them to, you got your way."

Another way to say this is that you prevented them for imposing their will on you by blending with their movement and energy thus creating harmony. It takes a lot of courage, confidence and training to be able to do this, hence the call for more and more training.

The Swiss are strange and are a more complicated example than I think your quote suggests... they seem to believe more in neutrality than in non-violence per se - they have a policy that's something along the lines of, not to get involved if they aren't directly attacked. I don't know how big their army actually is or how it ranks in terms of planes and tanks, etc, but they have mandatory military service for all able bodied males and voluntary for women - so a huge percentage of their adult population is basically a member of the army. They have militias and are required to maintain their weapons and keep them at home, hence have very high rates of gun ownership with, according to a quick google search, an estimated 1-3 million guns in a total population of about 7 million, including some half a million military issue assault rifles kept at home.

Dear Basia,
Why should the Swiss[and any other inteligent country ] go to war unless being threatened directly ? The Swiss being intelligent people simply sit back and coin in the money stashed away by would be dictators/dictators / greedy politicians etc.Think of all the private safety deposit boxes in Zurich.As for the Swiss Army sounds like Dads Army.Sounds like a good defence system [not ] against missiles/tanks /Harrier jets.
Cheers, Joe

looking though all the posts and saw nobody mentioned the bedroom conditions

the asian model of yin-yang, hard-soft, is about balance. you can't have one without the other. sometimes you need hard, other times you need soft. some buggers need to be kill and some need to be save. some need to be led down the floor gently, others need to be drill into the floor (some might like it and ask for more for they might enjoy the sore since they have masochist tendency at the core and some might say "no more! never more!". yet other might still implore or laugh or exclaim "blimey! cor!"

As originally stated--"Before you can be benevolent and spare people from pain /punishment/retribution you have to be in a position ... to inflict punishment in the first place"--it's obviously false. It doesn't take much thinking to see it.

Take Martin Luther King in this country. He didn't have the power to inflict any sort of punishment--cause a few riots, maybe, is all--yet he led a movement that spared many people pain, on both sides of the racial divide. Having a big stick and a belligerent attitude doesn't guarantee peace, just that people will leave you alone until someone bigger comes along.

But I do think my aikido has to work martially or I'm wasting my time. Some rambling thoughts as to why:

From weakness comes fear, and from fear comes belligerence. The confidence to deal with a situation as it is, without feeling like you must beat down and overwhelm, comes from knowing you have valid options--that you know how to respond. Aikido teaches a range of responses. It teaches how to respond to big strong attackers as well as small quick attackers. It teaches how to respond even when you feel overwhelmed and overmatched.

Physical and mental responses are not separate, any more than mind and body are separate. Aikido teaches a response based on centeredness, self-awareness, and self-sufficiency--it teaches not to be drawn off balance or over-extend or overcommit no matter what uke does or doesn't do.

Nonetheless, aikido teaches how to be aware of the attacker and understand their attack. It teaches you to see mechanical flaws in balance and posture (good), to blend with their movement and lead them off-balance (better) and to accept their attack and neutralize it in your own centeredness (best, in my value system, which you don't have to buy into).

But it won't do any of this if you don't have a martially valid situation. If you're not dealing with real attacks, with the potential to do some harm if you screw up, you aren't really practicing any of the above.

Dear Hugh,
I used the phrase walk softly /big stick as an analogy.
Who said anything about be belligerent?Martin Luther King was the peaceful side of the racial stuff .What about the Black Panthers?They were not in the Boy Scout movement.Malcolm X also was initially against 'Whitey' and did not preach universal brotherhood.
Sad to say human nature will take advantage of the weak.
As far as hard /soft in aikido is concerned I think the Aikido body has to be tempered /forged by severe training.Of course this is not fashionable nowadays.Most if not all the early Uchi deshi of O Sensei endured a very severe routine.
Cheers, Joe.

Dear Basia,
Why should the Swiss[and any other inteligent country ] go to war unless being threatened directly ? The Swiss being intelligent people simply sit back and coin in the money stashed away by would be dictators/dictators / greedy politicians etc.Think of all the private safety deposit boxes in Zurich.As for the Swiss Army sounds like Dads Army.Sounds like a good defence system [not ] against missiles/tanks /Harrier jets.
Cheers, Joe

Hi Joe

A friend of mine, that is swiss, told me something about pay a fee every year to avoid something related to the army (and he is between his 40's and 50's). He is against war and is a comunist too. He is really a good person

Anyway, Swiss found a way to survive in a chaotic world (even more in Europe, with all their wars since way before the Greeks...).

Probably is not the most ethical way of life, since almost all the "economic resources" that ends there are the product of human exploitation.

But again, with all that are talking here are, in a direct or indirect way, exploits others human beings. Chinese, Indian, the poor in our own countries, etc.

The question is: why ANYONE would go to WAR?
Maybe someone will answer that sometimes this is inevitable, to defend a country of being invaded, etc.

But again, why a country would like to invade other country?

Maybe because instead everyone being working towards a common goal (social human developing, for example), we insists in explore others and excuse our actions with thoughts like "the world is for the smart", "be the best or take the consequences" and other foolish ideas.

And we bring this type of thoughts to our aikido training, instead learning something good there and go put it in action out of tatamae.

We stay at the "hard" aikido (like in the concept of Ron), instead go ahead.

I appreciate the perspectives and am finding this thread an interesting read. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'll throw out some additional comments:

1. Harmony does not have a virtue. The imposition of one's will onto another is manipulation. Sometimes harmony sucks. I think we need to understand that want we are really saying is, "I'm all about harmony as long as I get to do what I want [to]." O'Sensei said the pursuit of aikido is about understanding the universal truth. We are to act as interpreters who better understand what is going on and act in a manner to preserve a greater thing. So we are manipulating "harmony" to our perspective.
2. The variations of definitions will kill us. I have noticed this trend in aikido to re-define terminology as we see fit, often different from the original definition. I understand we have a language and culture barrier, but eventually the terms will degrade because there is no factual basis for them.

I think something Mike [Sigman] brought up is important. Here is a clear definition of hard and soft and I read several posts that dismissed the definition. Mike didn't make up that stuff... we just no longer want to use that definition...it has become contrary to how we do aikido so we are simply dismissing the term.

We need to be careful in our use of language. Dancy-aikido is either dance or aikido. Aikido is an internal art - you either have internal power from the training, or you do not. As Hanna suggested, I would prefer to receive dance lessons from a dancer, not a martial artist. I would prefer to receive martial arts instructor from a martial artist, not a dancer. But once we start confusing the two...

If someone tries to hit you over the head, you prevent them, regardless of the means, have you not just imposed your will on them? They wanted to hit you, you didn't want them to, you got your way.

Quite a simplistic example but I hope my point clear; I think it is not as simple as "imposing will" since you "allowing" a technique to occur does involve some will on your part otherwise we wouldn't need to learn aikido just walk round with a "what will be will be" attitude wouldn't we?

I'm not suggesting that the technique being dictated by the circumstance is wrong, just that this could be seen as imposing your will, albeit more "subtlely" perhaps.

Hi Rich -

Imposing my will on someone is forcing him to do something he does not want to do. For instance, if as nage I attempt to execute a shihonage throw and uke does not move where I expect him to I can crank on his wrist and shoulder to force him to move where I want him to (hard). I can impose my will on him. On the other hand if I instead adapt my motion to conform to his I can follow the circumstance as it unfolds and execute the technique at a point where it emerges naturally from our interaction (soft).

The difference is more than one of descriptive language. Approaching Aikido training from either point of view requires a distinct mindset on the part of the student in order to grasp the concepts underlying the physical training.

I would prefer to receive dance lessons from a dancer, not a martial artist. I would prefer to receive martial arts instructor from a martial artist, not a dancer. But once we start confusing the two...

ran into a guy when i took hapkido years ago. he stood out among the many black belts. his timing and distance and smoothness and balance and everything he did was incredible and perfect. found out later that he also taught ballroom dancing and figure skating. sometimes it's hard to differentiate the two.

To me, aiki, when applied to a physical encounter (in a training, for example), and by a physical point of view, is about to get all the energy that the partner is using to hit/grab you and "dissipate" it, usually in an immobilization or a throw.

To accomplish this, we must be "sensitive" to the other/surrounds, so that there is no need to "think" in what must be done. This would be your "soft" aikido.

It's impossible to get to this point if you have your mind stressed, if you feel aggressive or if you are in a "defensive" state, etc. In other words, it's impossible to do aiki if you have fear, even if it's difficult to see it.

The problem is that usually we are always in a fear state, almost all the time in our lives, not only in the tatame. Because this, our body is conditioned to certain responses that is incompatible with aiki.

We must learn, first, to overcome our own defences and automatic responses.

So, before you can simple let things happen, you must pass by the "hard" aikido step.
In this step, that starts with us learning to move ourselves in ways that we wouldn't before. We will be, most of time, thinking instead of feeling, because we are yet learning.

It's the type of training that we do and our own focus and objectives that will accelerate slow or even prevent us from getting to the soft aikido.

Hi Eduardo -

Interesting thoughts. I do believe there is a natural progression from hard to soft regardless of the form one learns at the outset.

Seems to me people here have changed the meaning of the terms: "hard" and "soft", those terms are related to the way one moves and emplys his techniques, not to their efficiency/ effect/ potential for damage/ ...
Softness is about feeling the other, being sensitive to his movements and intentions. softnessis also about own power gneration - supported by the all body in a supple no rigid way. All of these are also connected to harmoney - moving with the other, and not against his moves.

The way I have been taught,claims one has to be softifone wishes to have ability. Aikido techniques are nearly impossibleto implement against resisteance if one is hard, if one is really soft, the resistance tends to disapear (and often one should change his technique in the process).

In this usage of terms, "soft" requires one to be strong, like the tiger, and not weak. "Soft" does not equal giving up to any resistance, rather feeling it before hand and channeling the new vector into ones own movement.

To be soft implies awareness, because of that, if is soft, he should be benoulovant and not remain malouvent. But, again, that does not equal letting an attackerget away, rather, adjasting the response to the specific situaiton.

Amir

****
As for the swiss, to the best of my knowledge, their army has been considered as one of the strongest armiesfor many centuries (no accident the pope guard is called "swiss guard").

As for wars, one main reason for those is dispute over resources, which could be land, gas, fuel, watter, money or people. Or any cmbination there after. Add to this the natural human "dislike of strangers" - important for groups survival in the past (shown even among apes). Humans define own groups in many ways - nation, religion, etc.

Imposing my will on someone is forcing him to do something he does not want to do. For instance, if as nage I attempt to execute a shihonage throw and uke does not move where I expect him to I can crank on his wrist and shoulder to force him to move where I want him to (hard). I can impose my will on him. On the other hand if I instead adapt my motion to conform to his I can follow the circumstance as it unfolds and execute the technique at a point where it emerges naturally from our interaction (soft).

The difference is more than one of descriptive language. Approaching Aikido training from either point of view requires a distinct mindset on the part of the student in order to grasp the concepts underlying the physical training.

Best,

Ron

You expect uke to move one way, they move another, uke doesn't want to have shihonage done to them (otherwise why would you need to crank it? I could let you do it from anywhere) so you adjust and more softly/smoothly apply your technique to them. You have softly imposed your will over uke.

A friend of mine, that is swiss, told me something about pay a fee every year to avoid something related to the army (and he is between his 40's and 50's). He is against war and is a comunist too. He is really a good person

Anyway, Swiss found a way to survive in a chaotic world (even more in Europe, with all their wars since way before the Greeks...).

Probably is not the most ethical way of life, since almost all the "economic resources" that ends there are the product of human exploitation.

But again, with all that are talking here are, in a direct or indirect way, exploits others human beings. Chinese, Indian, the poor in our own countries, etc.

The question is: why ANYONE would go to WAR?
Maybe someone will answer that sometimes this is inevitable, to defend a country of being invaded, etc.

But again, why a country would like to invade other country?

Maybe because instead everyone being working towards a common goal (social human developing, for example), we insists in explore others and excuse our actions with thoughts like "the world is for the smart", "be the best or take the consequences" and other foolish ideas.

And we bring this type of thoughts to our aikido training, instead learning something good there and go put it in action out of tatamae.

We stay at the "hard" aikido (like in the concept of Ron), instead go ahead.

Dear Eduardo,
How about oil?Natural reserves? Make cash from armament sales?Neo Colonialism?Lebensraum?Plenty of reasons why one country would invade another.Think Iraq.Cheers, Joe.

You expect uke to move one way, they move another, uke doesn't want to have shihonage done to them (otherwise why would you need to crank it? I could let you do it from anywhere) so you adjust and more softly/smoothly apply your technique to them. You have softly imposed your will over uke.

As for wars, one main reason for those is dispute over resources, which could be land, gas, fuel, watter, money or people. Or any cmbination there after. Add to this the natural human "dislike of strangers" - important for groups survival in the past (shown even among apes). Humans define own groups in many ways - nation, religion, etc.

Amir

Quote:

Joe Curran wrote:

Dear Eduardo,
How about oil?Natural reserves? Make cash from armament sales?Neo Colonialism?Lebensraum?Plenty of reasons why one country would invade another.Think Iraq.Cheers, Joe.

Quote:

Cliff Judge wrote:

If you've invested in defense, war is obviously a way to make a lot of money.

Its also a good way to secure a position of power in a democratic society, particularly if your people tend to be scared and uneducated.

Hi people

I think all this goes in "etc". haha
It's easy to find many reasons why a country goes to a war.

Like I said before, the reason why we are at war since the beginning of time is that we have fear and think that exploit others is the only way to guarantee (or improve) our "way of life".

The same happens in Aikido. Most of time, because of fear (even if it is not visible to us), we try to "exploit" the other, try to overcome him.

Using what Amir said (and I agree, if I understand), this is to be "hard" aikido, because this leads to a great difficult to achieve a empty mind so that the "universe" is able to tell us what must be done.
Maybe a little shift in our training mind set can change our "hard" aikido into "soft" aikido.

But is really difficult to do this. And the wars are out there to prove how difficult is to change our way of thinking.

You expect uke to move one way, they move another, uke doesn't want to have shihonage done to them (otherwise why would you need to crank it? I could let you do it from anywhere) so you adjust and more softly/smoothly apply your technique to them. You have softly imposed your will over uke.

Not saying malicious, just will was imposed.

Hi Rich

I'm a little confused.

Seems to me that one of the themes discussed here is the need to adapt our movement to uke's movement AFTER the attack have been initiated, in the case the uke move in an unexpected way AFTER we are doing something (like a shiho nage).

This, to me, sounds like "lack of control".

After the attack starts and nage and uke join the movement, the nage must be in "control".
If the uke has "space" to do something unexpected, it's a failure of nage.

I will (try to) enter a shiho nage only if I have control enough to be sure that the uke can not "avoid" it. It's dangerous to the uke and for me trying to apply a technique if the uke is not "dominated".

In fact, the "control" must be gained when the movement starts... The technique (shiho nage, ni kyo, it kyo, etc) is only to "show" the uke that what he is trying to achieve (hit me or grab me) is useless...

On the subject of control? I too adhere to a principle of non-control in my Aikido. Therefore no imposition of will. Having that as a principle means when not doing so then the Aikido is less effective.

Sounds strange I know.

In fact I group that principle with a few others, namely non-opposition, non-aggression and non-disturbance.

I also relate them to centre line. So be it.

Thus in my Aikido there is no control from the analytical meaning of the word, from the mechanical meaning, from the generally held meaning, from the combative meaning.

There is however joining with and leading in accordance universal laws. Will is extinct at that point.

It has been my experience that when I began in Aikido I was harder, using too much muscle. As I have progressed I have become softer which has allowed me to come full circle and throw harder! Ok ok,.............. have a wider range to adapt to the attack at hand.

Seems to me that one of the themes discussed here is the need to adapt our movement to uke's...

Hi Eduardo,

I was using the example above to illustrate that I believe that applying a technique/principal to someone who has decided to attack you such that the attack is foiled is an imposition of your will on to that person, not that I am passing judgement on this.

I am merely pointing out that if someone has the desire to do you harm and you prevent them, by whatever means, you have thwarted their willed outcome of events and imposed your own.

I was not trying to explain application of technique per se but exploring the concept of whether hard/soft, as they are being discussed here, are linked to imposition of one's will upon another. I believe not.

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

I too adhere to a principle of non-control in my Aikido.

Graham, how do you see it as non-control if uke does not complete the movement they envisaged when they began? Is it not control?

It might be that the definitions of control and will are what are at odds here.

I am merely pointing out that if someone has the desire to do you harm and you prevent them, by whatever means, you have thwarted their willed outcome of events and imposed your own.

Hi Rich -

When I engage an uke on the mat I form a connection with him that goes beyond a purely physical interaction. I connect with his center in such a way as to break down the barrier that defines "him: and "me". When attacked I become the attack, so to speak. I don't think about what's going on, have no agenda and simply lead/follow where our motion takes us. At some point the technique will grow out of our movement. There is no question of imposing my will on him because both he an I have vanished for the duration of the interaction.

The study of connection is a core component of my practice, something I have been working on for many years, and I'm sure that attempting to explain it in a few sentences leaves more unsaid than otherwise. I guess you have to experience it in order for it to make any real sense.

On the subject of control? I too adhere to a principle of non-control in my Aikido. Therefore no imposition of will. Having that as a principle means when not doing so then the Aikido is less effective.

Sounds strange I know.

In fact I group that principle with a few others, namely non-opposition, non-aggression and non-disturbance.

I also relate them to centre line. So be it.

Thus in my Aikido there is no control from the analytical meaning of the word, from the mechanical meaning, from the generally held meaning, from the combative meaning.

There is however joining with and leading in accordance universal laws. Will is extinct at that point.

G.

Hi Graham

When you talk about "universe law" and not impose will or control (by yourself), I can't help but see that you're talking about being only a "vessel" to a greater force (the universe).

For me, this is a "faith" view and I can't argument on this subject.

But there is one point that I think I can. The "will" subject.

Even if you're not aiming to impose your will on the uke directly, letting the universe choose the path of events, you're doing it anyway.

This is because you choose to be the "vessel" of the universe law. Doing this, you're accepting the universe law will impose it's own "will" on the uke, because uke is trying to impose their will on you. And accepting this, you're imposing your will to uke.

But this "will" that we're talking is, seems to me, a "philosophical" one. It's more concept than feelings.

I agree with you that to do aiki one must, in the contact moment, have no feelings of "imposing" anything on the uke.

But the ausence of feelings doesn't mean that your will is not being imposed to the uke...

Confusing?

Quote:

Rich Hobbs wrote:

Hi Eduardo,

I was using the example above to illustrate that I believe that applying a technique/principal to someone who has decided to attack you such that the attack is foiled is an imposition of your will on to that person, not that I am passing judgement on this.

I am merely pointing out that if someone has the desire to do you harm and you prevent them, by whatever means, you have thwarted their willed outcome of events and imposed your own.

I was not trying to explain application of technique per se but exploring the concept of whether hard/soft, as they are being discussed here, are linked to imposition of one's will upon another. I believe not.

Graham, how do you see it as non-control if uke does not complete the movement they envisaged when they began? Is it not control?

It might be that the definitions of control and will are what are at odds here.

Ok Rich, I got your point
And I agree.

But like I said to Graham, seems that we all are talking about different "levels" or "layers" of control and will.

I am merely pointing out that if someone has the desire to do you harm and you prevent them, by whatever means, you have thwarted their willed outcome of events and imposed your own.

If you refuse to play someone else's game (and have the power to back it up), is that really "imposing your will" on them? Think about this scenario: you're standing outside a shop, trying to engage people as they go in and out, because you want them to join your organization/sign a petition/whatever. I walk up to the shop, intent on buying my newspaper/six pack of beer/wankel rotary engine/whatever. You step in my way and try to engage me, but before you can really get going I say "No thanks" and dodge around you and continue on my way. I have the power to prevent you from giving me your spiel because I'm ambulatory and I've dealt with this situation before. Do you truly believe that I've "imposed my will" on you?

(or, if you find that example to be irrelevant, change it from "trying to engage people" to "trying to smack people on the head". It works either way)

If you refuse to play someone else's game (and have the power to back it up), is that really "imposing your will" on them? Think about this scenario: you're standing outside a shop, trying to engage people as they go in and out, because you want them to join your organization/sign a petition/whatever. I walk up to the shop, intent on buying my newspaper/six pack of beer/wankel rotary engine/whatever. You step in my way and try to engage me, but before you can really get going I say "No thanks" and dodge around you and continue on my way. I have the power to prevent you from giving me your spiel because I'm ambulatory and I've dealt with this situation before. Do you truly believe that I've "imposed my will" on you?

(or, if you find that example to be irrelevant, change it from "trying to engage people" to "trying to smack people on the head". It works either way)

This comment was for Rich, but if you don't mind Mary, I'll say something too

If your will is NOT to be engaged (or NOT to have your head smacked), even if you just dodge around, not even touching the "offender", you still make your will prevail.

To me, thats the point. In the "big picture", you imposed your will, because you make things happen at your like

Touch or dodge are only "means" to achieve the goal that is, in your example, avoid the engagement or the headache (the will of the others).

If you refuse to play someone else's game (and have the power to back it up), is that really "imposing your will" on them? Think about this scenario: you're standing outside a shop, trying to engage people as they go in and out, because you want them to join your organization/sign a petition/whatever. I walk up to the shop, intent on buying my newspaper/six pack of beer/wankel rotary engine/whatever. You step in my way and try to engage me, but before you can really get going I say "No thanks" and dodge around you and continue on my way. I have the power to prevent you from giving me your spiel because I'm ambulatory and I've dealt with this situation before. Do you truly believe that I've "imposed my will" on you?

(or, if you find that example to be irrelevant, change it from "trying to engage people" to "trying to smack people on the head". It works either way)

It's a good point and I see what you're saying but I think they are not the same so I'll explain it to try to clarify... though it is possible that our views simply differ.

It's unlikely the attacker wants to be thrown/immobilised/restrained/"helped" to fall/whatever but unless this is the outcome, what stops them from continuing to try and hit you as you try to not engage? If you run away and they don't catch you then I would say it is a similar scenario to your shopping example, otherwise you have manipulated the attacker's course of action physically to be different than that of the attacker's intent thereby imposing your "will".

I do not mean physically manhandling me, I mean as in the attackers physical actions are altered, whether by you actioning this by physicality/leading/etc is irrelevant in terms of outcome when measuring whether you have effected a change in the person.

In your example you are simply not entering into involvement in their scenario, they can in fact continue their spiel whether you stop or not (though this would be somewhat pointless).